Angelina Weld Grimke Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Angelina Weld Grimke - Essay Example She attended the Harvard Law School with her aunt’s help (Reuben, 2010). Grime received education from a lot of schools that include the Clushing Academy and graduated in 1902. After that, Grimke started to teach English in the Armstrong Manual Training School. Till her retirement, Grinke taught in the Dunbar High School which she joined in 1916. Grimke had excellent writing skills since childhood. In 1916, she wrote Rachel followed by The Closing Door in 1919. Both of these novels were highly appreciated among the readers. With the passage of time, she learnt about racism and expressed her concerns in Rachel. Rachel is largely considered as her â€Å"first attempt to use the stage for race propaganda in order to enlighten the American people relating to the lamentable condition of ten millions of Colored citizens in this free republic." (Harris, 1986, p. 152). As an author of short fiction, poet, essayist, and playwright, Angelina Weld Grimke is perceived as the Harlem Renai ssance’s forerunner in spite of the fact that most of the work she did was published in her early twenties (Villarreal, 2003). References: Gates, H. (2004). Norton Anthology of African-American Literature (2nd ed.) ISBN# 9780393977783. Harris, T. (ed.) (1986). Dictionary of Literary Biography: African-American Writers Before the Harlem Renaissance. Vol. 50.

Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 4

Land Law - Essay Example both personal and proprietary rights to land exist and an individual may not technically own land but a series of rights related to the use of the land1. From a jurisprudential standpoint, the distinction between personal rights and proprietary rights to use land is critically important today as it was in the past. This is particularly because land leases remain personal property in the contemporary English property laws. As such a clear distinction between personal rights and proprietary rights may be required in solving a wide range of land use disputes and other legal issues pertaining to land ownership, inheritance, leasing, and contractual agreements. However, despite some of the clear legal benefits of drawing the distinction between personal rights and proprietary rights to use land, there have been a number of opposing arguments questioning the necessity of distinguishing the two rights. For example, many critics argue that the distinction may not be necessary due to the diminishing divide between personal rights and property rights in the contemporary English laws. According to this argument, the collapsing boundary between the proprietary rights and personal rights are mostly attributed to the current persistent commercial pressure. This paper argues that it is both necessary and possible to draw a clear distinction between personal and property rights to land use. The conceptual distinction between the property rights and the personal rights in the English law can best be seen in the fundamental differences between a land lease and a license. Firstly, whereas a lease usually confers exclusive possession and greater protection of the tenant (proprietary rights to the land), a license only confers personal permission with no exclusive possession rights and the licensee cannot enforce any of its rights against third parties. In this regard, a license does not qualify as a proprietary right. In the case of Errington v Errington Woods  [1952], Lord